Budget deal doesn't inspire much confidence

As with most things to come out of Washington these days, the budget deal negotiated by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., is more of a political fix than a policy solution.

Although Ryan touts it as modest deficit reduction, “a firm step in the right direction,” in truth its initial move is to increase spending and fees, then promises to tip-toe toward cutting spending years off in the future. That’s the price many Republicans appear willing to pay for a bipartisan agreement that ensures there will be no government shutdown drama for the next two years.

The debt crisis will have to take a back seat to the GOP’s election crisis. Avoiding yet another shutdown battle removes one large, potential distraction from focusing exclusively on Obama-care leading up to the 2014 midterms.

Clearly, a Senate controlled by Democrats along with a Democrat in the White House, limits Republicans’ ability to make necessary and substantial changes to federal spending.

From a voters’ standpoint, though, one has to wonder whether Republican promises of “Put us in charge again and we’ll cut spending, honest, we mean it this time” ring hollow.

Even factoring in political realities, the Ryan-Murray deal doesn’t inspire much confidence.

Under this proposed budget, spending will increase $63 billion in 2014-15, and various “fees,” such as on air travel, also will go up. Income taxes won’t, but make no mistake — several parts of American life will become a little more expensive.

What’s particularly galling about the spending hike is that it undermines the sequester spending caps. Although they are a blunt instrument that sometimes causes collateral damage, they also are the first real cuts in spending in ages. Hey, after being on the wagon for several months, one little nip from the bottle can’t hurt, right? For old times’ sake?

To see a supposed budget hawk like Ryan become willing to chip away at the sequester after only two years gives little hope for his deal’s promise to return to cutting spending by 2023. Even that is a paltry $23 billion spread over 10 years, with half supposedly coming in the last year.

Neither this nor any deal can bind future Congresses or presidents to spending cuts promised today. This is the old spending increases now, spending cuts later dance that Washington has been performing for decades. Charlie Brown has a better chance of finally kicking that football.

That is the principled case against the bill. In practical terms, though, the fiscal difference between it passing and failing is marginal — thimblefuls of red ink either bailed from or tossed into a crimson ocean. This is what passes for bipartisan progress in Washington these days.